SS is one of the biggest supporters of the military, and military peeps I have seen. His post had NO disrespect tward them. I think its bad form that you said he disrespected them.

Click to expand...

His words, not mine. If that's not his position, he's welcome to edit/clarify.

I personally think all those departments I listed do a wonderful job and support them wholeheartedly. I think they absolutely deserve every government benefit they receive for their immense sacrifice and service.

I entirely disagree he implied that. You are just as guilty as him in lumping everything together. You took a cheap shot at him that was totally baseless when he didn't pick apart every single piece of your post, when he had the class and restraint to bow out of the thread and leave you be

Click to expand...

Why do you disagree with that implication? He stated that it would be an insult for him to give his opinion of my mental capacity ostensibly because I considered the departments I listed as well run government entities that did better than their (former) private sector competition. If that was not his intention, he was and remains welcome to clarify WHICH of those departments he believes do well and which he believes do not.

And he hasn't bowed out of the thread yet.

I'm sorry guys, but I'm not going to lay down on this one just because it's unpopular to give ground to anything remotely progressive around here. We can either have a productive discussion, or we can run away from it. But I'm not much for running.

His words, not mine. If that's not his position, he's welcome to edit/clarify.

I personally think all those departments I listed do a wonderful job and support them wholeheartedly. I think they absolutely deserve every government benefit they receive for their immense sacrifice and service.

It is a tough problem. However, there are a lot of examples of government health care in the world. These examples aren't pretty and many of their citizens leave the country to PAY for health care out of pocket rather than dying on a wait list. I know the plan is to do it different here, but I suspect that is naive. The truth is that our plan would probably become very similar to those in Europe and Canada, even if it doesn't start out that way. I hope I am wrong.

The biggest problem with the services our government runs is the cost of these programs. Since it is taxpayer money, the money these organizations burn is incredible. I am sure we have all heard of the $500 toilet seat (or whatever the cost was). There is very little efficiency in government services. If we run the public health insurance the same way and we eventually chase away private health insurance (which I believe we will), then the cost to taxpayers will be incredible. This will result in more rationing of health care than was originally planned and that will result in waiting lists, denial of service. If this happens and there is no option to pay for care rather than be on a waiting list, then we have run out of medical options.

I hope it works out and I recognize that this is only my opinion. It could be much worse or much better than I am speculating. I respect everyone elses opinion.

why are we even debating this, we have a Congress that asks "how high" when Obama says "Jump!"
our congressmen/women have become so disconnected with society that they live in a fantasyworld of lobbying dollars and party-line fraternity. we have lost all our checks-and-balances.
we don't have a choice, really, Obama will keep pushing for it until its done, whether its the right thing to do or not. so fuck it!

Does it make a difference where the good deed is done? I regularly provide pro-bono care (care that is not charged for) to patients who cannot afford care. I regularly volunteer with the Special Olympics.

Believe me, I have plenty of volunteer service under my belt. That it doesn't happen to be with vets doesn't, in my mind, make it less worthwhile.

Heres my take. They may say that this will only be for people that can't afford general healthcare. Of course that will be what it is in the beginning, but as with all other government endeavors (social security, disability, welfare, etc) they all turn in to something they weren't supposed to become. Social security numbers were not meant to be used for identification purposes, but what are they used for now? Identification purposes. I personally think that we should have taken all that stimulus money and given it to the people that need healthcare.

Also, I don't know where the government gets all these numbers and stats from. I know there are not 40 million people in this country without healthcare. Probably 20 million of that are people that are here illegally. Why doesn't the government make an "Office of Imaginary Information" so they can make all this stuff up?

The only reason there is resistance in congress is because many senators and representatives from both parties are being paid to resist.

Click to expand...

I bet if you polled 6 year olds if they supported a pizza and ice cream option for breakfast everyday, over 80% of them would support it. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it a good idea.

So you are still denying the fact that you implied anything that wasn't said?

Click to expand...

No, I am stating that we both made an implication, and that mine was based on his.

You did. He never said anything of the sort and you keep saying I will apologize under certain stipulations.

This is disgusting

Click to expand...

See above, I am not denying I made an implication. But if you're claiming he didn't, then you're not assessing the statements sans bias.

And I'm not stating I will apologize either. I'm stating I will change my claim/position/implication provided he changes his first. After all, mine is based upon his statement.

He may be a popular TW member, and I'm sure he does many excellent things with his volunteer service. He has my respect for his service in the military. But he made a personal attack on me and an additional implication was made along side that attack. I see no reason why that's not going to be allowed public discussion if WE chose to take that action on a public discussion board.

No, I am stating that we both made an implication, and that mine was based on his.

See above, I am not denying I made an implication. But if you're claiming he didn't, then you're not assessing the statements sans bias.

And I'm not stating I will apologize either. I'm stating I will change my claim/position/implication provided he changes his first. After all, mine is based upon his statement.

He may be a popular TW member, and I'm sure he does many excellent things with his volunteer service. He has my respect for his service in the military. But he made a personal attack on me and an additional implication was made along side that attack. I see no reason why that's not going to be allowed public discussion if WE chose to take that action on a public discussion board.

Click to expand...

He made a personal attack on you because you shoved words in his mouth that he never even came close to saying. He has proven to be the more tactful member over you BY FAR for stopping posting. You are immaturely refusing to apologize over an irrelevant point, and that is why I have lost respect for you, and agree that the politics ban is a good idea. I'm done, good luck

I bet if you polled 6 year olds if they supported a pizza and ice cream option for breakfast everyday, over 80% of them would support it. Just because something is popular, doesn't make it a good idea.

Click to expand...

Completely fair.

Would you have made the same argument for the Iraq War when it was popular? Would you make the argument now that just because it is unpopular it is/was not a bad idea?

Sometimes the minority doesn't get what it wants, no matter how vitriolic the opposition.

This is somewhat beside the point. The point in that post was that those persons opposing a government option for health care in the town halls and protests were in the minority, though a vocal one. That is all. The majority of people in this country DO support legislation which creates a public option.

He made a personal attack on you because you shoved words in his mouth that he never even came close to saying. He has proven to be the more tactful member over you BY FAR for stopping posting. You are immaturely refusing to apologize over an irrelevant point, and that is why I have lost respect for you, and agree that the politics ban is a good idea

Click to expand...

You're not thinking far enough back. The personal attack I am referring to is when he stated it would not be nice to give his opinion of my mental capacity:

Wow... you name those entities as examples of the government doing right?
You're not even worth my time responding. I'll be nice for the forum's sake and just end my participation of this discussion rather than telling you what I think of your brain capacity.

Click to expand...

which was well before I made the statement you refer to.

And I'm not concerned with tact. Tact and maturity have nothing to do with this. You want me to stop stating my positions because you disagree with them, and you're trying to mask that opinion behind supposed high-road words like "tact" and "maturity".

No, tact and maturity would've been not making any references to anyone's mental capacity (which I NEVER did) and simply discussing the subject of the thread (which I DID do, until snapped at). What is angering people here is that I am standing by my opinions and points and providing basis for them, even though they don't care for them. Time was, this was a free country. I suppose it's not a free internet.

I'm not out to win popularity points, I'm out to discuss, as I have said many times. I look forward to a spirited discussion of the topic of governmental involvement in health care IF we get there, and IF it is permitted.